D&D (2024) Should Bounded Accuracy apply to skill checks? Thoughts on an old Alexandrian article

Wow. Even for groups without Expertise? How do your players react to these sorts of checks being common? Have they optimized to be able to make them or do they just get creative and circumvent them?

Honestly curious here!
Oh, and for the record, having discussions around "Huh, you do it that way? That seems like it would be a problem to me, how do you make it work?" are the best reason to hang out here, so I'm really glad this is a good dialogue.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Most of them are optional, as I mentioned. An Acrobatics 25 check to maintain your balance on a sniper perch high above the battlefield that gives cover. Athletics 25 to shove over a statue that does 10d6 bludgeoning damage to the area under it. A DC 30 Arcana check that unravels the ritual that's summoning the demon, thus sending it away. A DC 28 History check to identify ancient sigils carved into the walls, thus giving a major clue as to the identity of what exactly is haunting these catacombs.

I use very much the method BG3 does; if you make a difficult check, you can bypass an encounter or get a major bonus to it. But if you don't, the party just encounters the encounter.
Well, I guess I can try it. I like to keep DC's reasonable, and so far, the highest DC has been to try and open an Arcane Locked door (after which I realized that arcane lock is actually an insane spell- what's with all these spells that modify rolls and DC's by 10, anyways? Like say, the elephant in the room that I'm surprised hasn't come up yet, pass without trace).
 

Were these things in 3E? I don't recall, I never played it much?

I seem to recall Rogues having enough skill points and Skill Expertise feat (??) to be good even then.

But you missed my point, Expertise alone takes care of this. Reliable Talent (2014) never even came up in most games. But when it did (and does) the two together are overkill IMO.

Lol no. 3e/3.5 gave rogues 8 skill points, but most of the classic thief abilities were broken up over multiple skills: sleight of hand, open lock, search, disable device, hide, move silently, climb, listen, spot, balance, tumble, use magic device. You were a fool to try to play a rogue without maxing intelligence over dexterity, and the rules for multi classing and skill points favored wizards so much that a wizard could be a far better rogue than a pure rogue with one level of rogue (or appropriate PrC) to unlock trapfinding. The issue wasn't fixed until Pathfinder paired down the skill list enough that rogues could be good at their core features without sacrificing Dex for Int. (Didn't fix the wizards were better rogues issue, but at least the rogue didn't put up such a miserable showing).
 

Oh, and for the record, having discussions around "Huh, you do it that way? That seems like it would be a problem to me, how do you make it work?" are the best reason to hang out here, so I'm really glad this is a good dialogue.
Oh trust me, there's lots of things about being a DM that I have trouble with, even after over 30 years, lol. But a lot of time, asking "hey, I'm having this problem" usually leads to "I have never had this problem, I don't think the problem exists" or "thou fool! you're doing it completely wrong!".

I think one of my first ever posts on this forum was about a scenario in forge of fury where the black dragon is given partial cover for only sticking it's head out of water, and when I said "so I took that to mean it has total cover for being completely in water", I got lambasted for it.

Then after another odd question about the Ring of Spell Storing, I left and didn't come back until I had a mod on GitP yell at me for talking about (real world event in gaming) which violated the site rules!
 

Lol no. 3e/3.5 gave rogues 8 skill points, but most of the classic thief abilities were broken up over multiple skills: sleight of hand, open lock, search, disable device, hide, move silently, climb, listen, spot, balance, tumble, use magic device. You were a fool to try to play a rogue without maxing intelligence over dexterity, and the rules for multi classing and skill points favored wizards so much that a wizard could be a far better rogue than a pure rogue with one level of rogue (or appropriate PrC) to unlock trapfinding. The issue wasn't fixed until Pathfinder paired down the skill list enough that rogues could be good at their core features without sacrificing Dex for Int. (Didn't fix the wizards were better rogues issue, but at least the rogue didn't put up such a miserable showing).
Yea, rogues are absolutely awful in 3.5. Without special feats and PrCs, the only version of the sneaky archetype that actually worked out of the box was the beguiler. Which was, of course, a full spellcaster. :)
 

The Rogue gets expertise in four skills over its career. So does the bard. The ranger gets three. The wizard gets it in one Intelligence skill. Anyone can get it in one skill of choice at fourth level with Skill Expert. Expertise is painfully easy to get. Much like weapon mastery, it's never more than one feat or one level dip away.
Welcome to the 2024 (and Tasha's) power creep rearing its ugly head? ;)

Well yes, you design around them. If the party lacks spell X, you either give them a scroll of it or don't include challenges requiring spell X.
Or you don't design around them and make the party getting something it lacks as part of the challenge? Why are DMs so quick to spoon-feed their players nowadays???

If a player says "I want to play a sneaky character who's good at traps," there are a lot of options I would point out to them that aren't rogue.
Sure, but would you suggest the Rogue first?

Are we discussing what the game IS, or what the game SHOULD BE? Those are two very distinct discussions, and it's important to thread sanity to not conflate them.
Sorry for the confusion, this is my fault as I am still in 2014-mode and will remain so. Most of these issues which seem to be arising are 2024 issues. No wonder?

I'm arguing from the perspective of "My party already has a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Wizard. What else could I add to that party?"

And if I'm arguing from the perspective of utility (as opposed to "what do I like to play", in those cases balance is immaterial), I would rather have a Bard or a 2nd Wizard over a Rogue.
Fair enough. I could see the argument for a Bard (given how crazy they are), but also have a very strong reason for Rogue given the other roles they can play to compliment such a party IMO.

We'll have to disagree. I've had quite a few rogues in my party over the years. Other than the occasional huge SA crit or some Cunning Action shenanigans, they generally get overshadowed once Tier 2 hits. They're actually more interesting in Tier 3, as spellcaster progression slows markedly and Reliable Talent is actually a very useful ability.
Again fair enough. Experiences differ, we all know that.

I'm in tier 2 in both games (one I run and one I play in). The one I play in my PC is actually a Rogue and he is the most effective PC in the party in both combat and utility. The other PCs (5th level) are a Barbarian, Druid, and Warlock/Cleric.

I don't see him being overshadowed by the others or even feeling that way any time soon...

In the game I DM our Rogue recently hit 7th level and is insane at his expertise skills already without Reliable Talent. And I know it will continue to get "worse" when Reliable Talent kicks in. Currently his skill set is (*expertise):

Acrobatics +8
Athletics +7*
Insight +7

Investigation +5
Perception +10*
Sleight of Hand +8
Stealth +11*
Survival +7
Thieves tools +8

Disguise kit +3
Poisoner's kit +8*

Everything bolded hits DC 15 on a roll of 8 or better (often less), so 65% chance of success. As a player, he is really happy with that at 7th level. I can't even imagine granting him Reliable Talent (2024) at 7th level along with Evasion! In a 2024 game, he would auto-sucess every skill at DC 15 other than the disguise kit!

No, I'm sorry, that is WAY too strong a feature for tier 2.

power creep, power creep, gotta love the power creep... duh dum dum. 👨‍🎤
 

Rogues could get the ability to always "take 10" on a skill which is equal to Reliable, but numbers were a lot bigger in 3e...

3e was filled with other ways to get bonuses. You had synergy bonuses (+2) for closely related skills, masterwork tools (+2), Feats that gave +2 to two different skills, Skill Focus for +3, and a wide array of items that granted Competence bonuses to skills which went up in increments of +5.

Oh and Trapfinding, which guaranteed that only a Rogue (at least in the PHB) could even attempt certain rolls higher than DC 20.
The SRD entry on taking 10/20 is a bit incomplete in ways that make the bolded bit seem close, but the hurdles taking 10 needed to clear that are not present for RT creates some of the reasons RT is a problem in their absence

Checks without Rolls
A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually
while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes,
though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions
and eliminate the luck factor.
Taking 10: When your character is not being threatened or dis-
tracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the
skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many
routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Dis-
tractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a

character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety
measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed
but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the
average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where
a particularly high roll wouldn’t help (such as using Climb to ascend
a knotted rope, or using Heal to give a wounded PC long-term care).
For example, Krusk the barbarian has a Climb skill modifier of +6
(4 ranks, +3 Strength modifier, –1 penalty for wearing studded
leather armor). The steep, rocky slope he’s climbing has a Climb DC
of 10. With a little care, he can take 10 and succeed automatically.
But partway up the slope, a goblin scout begins pelting him with
sling stones. Krusk needs to make a Climb check to get up to the
goblin, and this time he can’t simply take 10. If his player rolls 4 or
higher on 1d20, he succeeds.
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time (generally 2 minutes
for a skill that can normally be checked in 1 round, one full-round
action, or one standard action), you are faced with no threats or
distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for

failure, you can take 20. In other words, eventually you will get a 20
on 1d20 if you roll enough times. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill
check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20. Taking 20
means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you
fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as
long as making a single check would take. Since taking 20 assumes
that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did
attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure (for
instance, a Disable Device check to disarm a trap), your character
would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could
complete the task (in this case, the character would most likely set
off the trap). Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open
Lock, and Search.
For example, Krusk comes to a cliff face. He attempts to take 10,
for a result of 16 (10 plus his +6 skill modifier), but the DC is 20, and
the DM tells him that he fails to make progress up the cliff. (His
check is at least high enough that he does not fall.) Krusk cannot
take 20 because there is a penalty associated with failure (falling, in
this case). He can try over and over, and eventually he may succeed,
but he might fall one or more times in the process. Later, Krusk
finds a cave in the cliff and searches it. The DM sees in the Search
skill description that each 5-foot-square area takes a full-round
action to search, and she secretly assigns a DC of 15 to the attempt.
She estimates that the floors, walls, and ceiling of the cave make up
about ten 5-foot squares, so she tells Krusk’s player that it takes 1
minute (10 rounds) to search the whole cave. Krusk’s player gets a
result of 12 on 1d20, adds no skill ranks because Krusk doesn’t have
the Search skill, and adds –1 because that is Krusk’s Intelligence
modifier. His roll fails. Now the player declares that Krusk is going
to search the cavern high and low, taking as long as it takes. The DM
takes the original time of 1 minutes and multiplies it by 20, for 20
minutes. That’s how long it takes for Krusk to search the whole cave
in exacting detail. Now Krusk’s player treats his roll as if it were 20,
for a result of 19. That’s good enough to beat the DC of 15, and
Krusk finds an old, bronze key discarded under a loose rock.
Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10
and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to
caster level checks (such as when casting dispel magic or attempting
to overcome spell resistance).
Those underlined italicized bits were an important limitation that shifted the decision point for the party from if bob cares to do the thing he's guaranteed to succeed at over to how bob & the party can set the stage needed to just do the thing everyone knows bob can just do given the chance.
Ironically that page also includes a section explaining why the extreme DCs existed and a section covering how a party interacted with them :D
Practically Impossible Tasks
Sometimes you want to do something that seems practically
impossible. In general, a task considered practically impossible has a
DC of 40, 60, or even higher (or it carries a modifier of +20 or more
to the DC).
Practically impossible tasks are hard to delineate ahead of time.
They’re the accomplishments that represent incredible, almost
logic-defying skill and luck. Picking a lock by giving it a single, swift
kick might entail a +20 modifier to the DC; swimming up a waterfall
could require a Swim check against DC 80; and balancing on a
fragile tree branch might have a DC of 90.
The DM decides what is actually impossible and what is merely
practically impossible. Characters with very high skill modifiers are
capable of accomplishing incredible, almost unbelievable tasks, just
as characters with very high combat bonuses are.
COMBINING SKILL ATTEMPTS
When more than one character tries the same skill at the same time
and for the same purpose, their efforts may overlap.



Individual Events
Often, several characters attempt some action and each succeeds or
fails independently.
For example, Krusk and each of his friends needs to climb a slope
if they’re all to get to the top. Regardless of Krusk’s roll, the other
characters need successful checks, too. Every character makes a skill
check.


Aid Another
You can help another character achieve success on his or her skill
check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort.
If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you are



helping gets a +2 bonus to his or her check, as per the rule for
favorable conditions. (You can’t take 10 on a skill check to aid
another.) In many cases, a character’s help won’t be beneficial, or
only a limited number of characters can help at once. The DM limits
cooperation as he or she sees fit for the given conditions.
For instance, if Krusk has been badly wounded and is dying,
Jozan can try a Heal check to keep him from losing more hit points.
One other character can help Jozan. If the other character makes a
Heal check against DC 10, then Jozan gets a +2 circumstance bonus
on the Heal check he makes to help Krusk. The DM rules that two
characters couldn’t help Jozan at the same time because a third
person would just get in the way.
In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results
(such as with Disable Device, Search, and Survival), you can’t aid
another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t
achieve alone. For instance, a character who doesn’t have the
trapfinding class feature can’t use Search to help a rogue find a
magic trap, since the helper couldn’t attempt to find the magic trap
on his own.
IoW proto-Skill challenges
 

Also. If the Rogue's raison d'etre is to be super good at skill checks, why doesn't the Fighter get to double their proficiency bonus with attack rolls? Seems to me that the same logic would apply.
Because there's a lot more nuance to the combat system than the skill system.

With combat, you have number of attacks, damage, conditions, AC, your own hp, and all sorts of other things to consider. 2024 adds weapon masteries. In addition, combat is mostly a group activity: the whole group is working together to defeat the enemies. You have all sorts of tactics available – perhaps you're not doing all that much damage yourself but you're delaying the enemies long enough for other party members to get an additional round or two of ranged attacks before melee, and that's also a valid contribution.

Skill use tends to be pass/fail. You can bling it up a bit with things like fail forward, success at a cost, or partial success, but at its core it's still pass/fail based on a single roll. It also tends to be a solitary activity: you are the one opening that lock. You are the one tracking the bandits. You are the one translating the religious text to find a clue. So basically the only way to represent being good at skill X is to give more bigger number.
 

Rogues could get the ability to always "take 10" on a skill which is equal to Reliable, but numbers were a lot bigger in 3e...
True, which still exists in 5E (at least in 2014)...

Lol no. 3e/3.5 gave rogues 8 skill points, but most of the classic thief abilities were broken up over multiple skills: sleight of hand, open lock, search, disable device, hide, move silently, climb, listen, spot, balance, tumble, use magic device. You were a fool to try to play a rogue without maxing intelligence over dexterity, and the rules for multi classing and skill points favored wizards so much that a wizard could be a far better rogue than a pure rogue with one level of rogue (or appropriate PrC) to unlock trapfinding. The issue wasn't fixed until Pathfinder paired down the skill list enough that rogues could be good at their core features without sacrificing Dex for Int. (Didn't fix the wizards were better rogues issue, but at least the rogue didn't put up such a miserable showing).
Fair enough, but you could always Take 10, right as @James Gasik pointed out?

Anyway, this isn't about AD&D or 3E or anything but 5E, and I stand by my point that Expertise does more than enough to keep Rogues as skill monkeys:
But you missed my point, Expertise alone takes care of this. Reliable Talent (2014) never even came up in most games. But when it did (and does) the two together are overkill IMO.

Finally, I'll add a note in the game I run: the spellcaster doesn't cast invisibility on himself to go scouting... he cast's it on the ROGUE! ;)
 

I think Rogues should have just been subclasses of Fighter. Or Rogue should have a lot more fighting prowess and be a "light fighter" or "archer" with a Thief subclass.
 

Remove ads

Top